



0^ 



\ 



iiiiiMiii Hill mil III iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ill iiiiiiiiiiiii 
012 026 170 8 n 



HoUinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3-1955 



E 450 

■^^^ A SERMON 

Copy 1 



DUTY OF CITIZENS, 



WITH HKSPECT TO 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 



REV. G. F. KETTELL, 

OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL SOCIETY, 



POUGHKEEPSIE, N. T. 



TObftc JJlafns. N. Y. : 
EASTERN STATE JOURNAL PRINT 

1851. 



TTIK DUTY(,F ( ^nZKi^S 

wim KcartxT to tiik 

rUG-ITIVE SLAVS LAW. 



"Let cvtry .*oul liCBubjcrt unto the higher powers, for 4herc is no power tnl 
of (.icnl : ihe powers thai be are urdaiiicd «if GikJ. VVhoMiever, iherclore, lo- 
sisteth the powor, resisuih ilie ordinance of God, and liny ihai resist shnll re- 
ceive to ihcmselvcs damnatiun. For rulers are not a teroir to k'mhI wtirkx, I al 
to the evil, to all ihese then n< t be a/raid olthc rower 7 Do that wiiirli is .!;t>od, 
and ihoii >liall have praise of Ihe sani": For lie is the inini'-li-r i>f Gi d to thee (of 
pood tJm if thi'H dotliat which i*- <vil, be afraid : lor he be;ir> ih imi the Midrd 
in vain : for he is the minister of God, a revenger t<» execute wiatii ii[Min him 
that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must ne'Ui be snl jitt. not oiily (or uraih, but 
for conscience sake. ' — Romans lU, 1-5 

We understand these words to declare tliatCiod has insti- 
tuted civil government anions men. He has not, Itowcver, in- 
stituted any particular ibrm ot" government ; but any lorm 
Avliich men may choose or consent to, has in virtue of its exis 
tencc the Divine sanction. Whetiier a people tacitly allow a 
despotism to exist among them, or whether they hive chosen 
to establish a repuldic, the general obligation to be subject to 
the government is not altered. 

Whatever may be the form, the powers of government are 
ordained ol God. When a republican government existed 
among the Jews, it was approved of (iod, and they were as- 
sisted by him in their civil aiul military enterprises ; but when 
the nation changed its constitution, and established a monarchy, 
that form he also sanctioned, and their kings were called the 
Lord's annointcd. 

While, then, (iod has ordained tltat there shall be civil gov- 
ernment : he lias left the form thereof to be determined by 
each nation Ibr itself. Any government existing by the choice, 
or with the cansent of the nation, is a legitimate government, 
and an ordinance of Ciod. "The pow-ers that be are ordained 
of Ciod,"' and the ends of civil society as well as the Itiw of 
God, re(juire every man to render to the government uiuler 
which he lives, submission and obedience. He is bouiul there to 
not because he may judge it to be expedient and proper but 
because God has imposed it upon him as a moral duty. He is 
under a sacred obligation lo obey the laws antecedent to all 



question of their propriety. " He must needs be subject not 
only for wrath, (or fear of punishment,) but for conscience 
sak.'." 

There may indeed arise occasions which may justify men in 
refusing obedience to the law ; but no occasion can arise which 
will justify an individual in forcihhj resisting the law. The 
teachings of the New Testament to this end ar^ numerous and 
explicit. The words of our text, so emphatic and unequivo- 
cal, were addressed to Christians, living under the Roman gov- 
ernment, which subjected them to cruel persecution, and to 
everv species of torture and shame. 

They were indeed bound to refuse obedience when com- 
manded to do what God had forbidden, as in the case of wor- 
shipping idols. But in no case were they to raise their 
hands, or violently to oppose the civil power, but rather meek- 
1}'- to suffer the penalty of disobedience. The apostle Peter, 
also has these words. (Peter, 2, 13, &c.) " Submit your- 
selves to every ordinance of men for the Lord's sake, whether 
it be unto the king as supreme, or to governors as unto them 
that are sent by him, — for so is the will of God." The ex- 
amples of the New Testament are no less conclusive. Our 
Lord Jesus Christ, through the whole course of his life, sub- 
mitted himself to the law, and when finally arrested by a ruffian 
band, would suffer no resistance to be made, (though having 
legions of angels at his command,) but rebuked Peter for strik- 
ing the servant of the High Priest, telling him that " they that 
take the sword shall perish by the sword" — of the civil au- 
thority. 

The example of our Lord was implicitly followed by his 
apostles — when imprisoned, when beaten, when stoned, when 
driven from city to city, their constant languge was, " we are 
ready to suffer for His sake." Though all of them were per- 
secuted and most of them put to death, yet in no instance did 
one of them commit a violent act, or utter a violent word against 
the lawful authorities. But like Christ who was led as a sheep 
to tlie slaughter, and like Daniel who went into the lion's den, 
and the three Hebre.v children who submitted themselves to 
the flames of the fiery furnace, they meekly suffered for their 
religion, — but raised no hand, struck no blow, resisted no 
power. The precepts and examples of the New Testament, 
clearly teach that individuals are not to resist the civil power. 
And the reason is doubtless found in the benign and peaceful 
character of the christian religion, which seeks as much as 
possible to prevent strife and evil passions. The successful re- 
tistance of an individual to an established government is of 
course hopeless, and can therefore avail nothing as a remedy. 
It can only aggravate the evils it seeks to correct. The Gos- 



pel tliorefi)ro requires the christinn to fiufTiT in his own person, 
rather than l)y a useless resistance to stir up had passions and 
cause the dlu^ion of hlood, there hv ireatini; liir ^n-alcr evila 
than he iiinisell" en(hires. Indiviihials may, under certain cir- 
cumstances, refuse to ohc'V, hut in no ease must they resist. 

The case is indeed very different, when a whole peoph* pre- 
sent a united and or{j;nnized resistance against an unjust ami ty- 
rannical government, with the reasonable hope of securing to 
themselves a better. In sueh a ease the resistance is designed 
as a rtnicdy, and is iience justifiable. Sucii was the case with 
our Fatiiers, w ho as one people, or^'anized resistance against a 
foreign and unjust gevernment. And they succeeded in estab- 
lishing a free constitution. 

But it may perhaps be more important to consider what are 
the occasions that justily men in refusing obedience to the law ? 
This is a question of such a nice and intricate character that it 
would be presumption in me to expect to settle it conclusividy. 
13ut wc think that we shall sufiiciently cover all the ground 
which we propose to tread, if we assume the two following 
propositions : 

1. A government has no right to demand of its subjects, 
anything contrary to the law of God. 

2. A government has no right to demand of its subjects, 
anything contrary fo its own constitution. 

Should the acts of government be adjudged by competent 
authority, contrary to the fundamental law of the land, they 
may of course be treated null, and void of authority. But we 
think that the ends of civil society forbid individuals to set 
themselves up as ultimate judges of the constitutionality of the 
acts of government, and to assume each one, in his own per- 
son, to determine wliatlaw he shall obey, and what law he shall 
not obey. U'his, so lar as the individual is concerned, would 
be the abrogation of government, and makes his private opinion 
supreme law, which we think is incomputil)Ie with social order, 
and tlie will of (Jod. Should individuals take upon themselves 
to refuse obedience to the laws ; tiny will do it at their piril, 
and must, until the laws which they venture to disobey shall be 
adjud-ed illegal, be accounted guilty of crime in resisting the 
ordinance of (iod. 

But when, on the other hand, a government issues laws 
clearly in accordance with its constitution, and moreover in- 
tended to carry out the specific objects of such constitution, 
there can be no excu.^c for an individual who opposes llu-m, 
except on the ground that they are contrary to the law of <utd. 
No human law can require a man to do w hat dod has forbid- 
den. But in laying down this proposition we at once run in*o 
a maze of diiliculties as to what God's w ill is in a matter of this 



kind. It was not difficult for the Apostles to decide this ques- 
tion, for they were guided by inspiration, and their acts were 
authenticated by miracles It mi^^ht not be difTicult to deter- 
mine it under a heathen government, where the question lies 
between Christianity a;id Paganism. But under a cliristian 
government, Avhere it is not to be presumed that any of the 
fundamental principles of Cliristianily will be outraged, it may 
not be so easy to decide it. Questions which can arise at this 
age of the world, concerning a christian's duty to a christian 
government, must almost of necessity be of an unsettled and 
disputable nature, and where is the authority competent to de- 
cide them ? Upon a thousand questions, of botli theoretical 
and practical ethics, conflicting opinions are perpetually start- 
ing up, and there is no universal standard to which they can be 
referred. To say that the Bible is the standard, is to say noth- 
in"" ; for each sect and school has its peculiar mode of inter- 
preting the Bible, and puts forth its own view as the authora- 
tive will of God. But it is clear tliat the speculations ■. fa par- 
ticular school of moralists cannot be universally received as 
God's law. The theological dogmas of a particular sect are not 
God's law. The decisions of a particular church are not God's 
law, having an authoritywhich shall be supreme above all civil 
government, and justify men in arraying themselves against the 
laws of their countr}'. 

Neither can what men may be pleased to call the dictates of 
their consciences, be taken implicitly as the law of God. The 
conscience, like every other faculty of the human soul, is an 
imperfect and erring facult}^, and is influenced, and on many 
points controlled, by the peculiar ideas and prejudices of edu- 
cation. The consciences of men differ as much as their theo- 
logy, not only upon questions of religion, but also upon many 
questions of morals ; and the conscience of the same individual 
may differ in its decisions of the same moral questions, and hold 
a thing to be morally right to-day which yesterday, under the 
same circumstances, it held to be morally wrong ; and no man 
can be certain, that many things which he calls right to-day, 
he will not call wrong to-morrou . Men moreover are so liable 
upon all contested questions to mistake their wills for their con- 
science, and to blend their passions and convictions together, 
that it would be exceedingly unsafe to acknowledge as the law 
of God what each individual may declare to be his moral con- 
victions. It must often be a matter of doubt whether God has 
commanded what men's consciences declare to be his will, but 
it can never be a matter of doubt that he has commandid them 
to be subject to the civil power. We contend, then, that upon 
a doubtful and contested question, men are more certain to 
obey God by submitting to the law, than by opposing it. God's 



law is sunrcmc above nil human autliorily ; but so imporfcct 
and variable a laculty as ibc lonscionce, is nut its inlallilik- in- 
terpreter, and to allow eaeli individual to adopt its laneied su^;- 
gcslions as the rule by wbicb to [govern bis alje^ianee to the 
constilulion oj" his country, woidd be to abrogate oil the gov- 
ernment, and overthrow the ordinance of (Jod. 

How, then, are we to gather our conclusions of what fiod*8 
law requires, that we may discern the occasions which justify 
us in disobeying the laws? We answer, that when a great 
and enlightened peoj)le ; a people |)Obsessing a proverbial rev?- 
renee for Ciod's will, and posses.-siiig, moreover, all the ad\anta- 
ges wliieh the world allbrtis, for deciding n great moral (jues- 
tion — when such a people deliberately, and with devout prayer 
to God for wisdom, agree upon a constitution, as the best and 
wisest, which can lie devised for their government, it is then 
to be presumed, that such constitution has the divine sanction, 
and that to maintain and support it in all its parts, is not con- 
trary to Ciod's will. If in any case, " the powers that be, are 
ordained of God,'' are they not in such a case ? If this is not 
absolute and inlallible proof, it is at least, we think, the highest 
kind of proof, that the nature of the case admits of. Upon a 
question of this kind, *' the voice of the people is the voice of 
God." 

If it is said, that after all, the voice of the many cannot right- 
fully control the consciences of the few, we may reply witli at 
least equal reason, that the voice of the few cannot irigiitlully 
control the consciences of the many. If the majority believe 
the government to be a legitimate government, consistent with 
the law of (lod, and as such an ordinance of God, — then it^ 
acts are binding upon their consciences. Their consciences, 
as well as their judgments and interests, bind them to maintain 
it. And now shall the few who may difler from them, declare 
that for their sakes such a government shall be paralyzed, and 
such a constitution become a dead letter. If conscience is to 
decide, shall the few presume that they alone have consciences, 
and willully obstruct the operation of laws which the con- 
sciences of the many bind them to uphold. We contend, that 
when the consciences of men thus come into conflict, it is the 
duty of the few to submit to the consciences of the many ; for 
if every man is to follow what he may please to call his own 
conscience, but which is to often his own w ill, or his own pas- 
sions, what niextricable confusion and disorder would be in- 
troduced into civil society. The whole social fabric would in- 
deed be disorganized. I'he fifth monarchy men in the reign of 
Cromwell, conceiving that the Lord Jesus was about to estab- 
lish a personal reign upon the earth, were impelled by their 
consciences to attempt the overthrow of all civil government, 



8 

and issuing forth, with swords in their hands, attacked the con- 
stituted authorities with such fury, that they were only subdued 
after a sanguinary struggle. St. Paul declares, that he acted in 
'- all good conscience" when he persecuted the saints and stoned 
Stephen. The ministers of the Inquisition inflicted their dia- 
bolical cruelties for conscience sake ; and the devout Puritans 
burnt W'itches for the glory of God. Who can enumerate the 
absurdities which have been enacted, and the villanies which 
have been perpetrated under the sacred authority of conscience. 
And, if all the stuff which fanatics, both religious and political 
choose to utter about their consciences, is to have practical 
force, to what frightful anarchy would human society be re- 
duced, and what contemptible mockeries would human govern- 
ments become ? We conclude, then, that when a constitution 
is adopted, with the concurrent will of an intelligent and re- 
Ifgious people, competent, so far as men may be competent, to 
judge of its agreement with the law of God, it is to be presum- 
ed as near in accordance therev.ath, as any human instrument 
can be. And even though such constitution might contain 
some provisions, which, if they could be separated from the 
rest would not meet the approval of many ; yet, if they are so 
incorporated with the rest that they cannot be separated, and 
it is upon the whole the nearest right, which it is the power of 
a Christian people to contrive, and the only one upon which 
all the people can agree, then we contend, that all are morally 
bound to respect and submit to it in all its parts. And further 
we contend, that every law passed to carry out the provisions 
of such constitution, is binding upon the consciences of all good 
citizens. Under such a government, a law is only contrary to 
God's law, when it is contrary to the constitution. If it should 
still be insisted that every man's conscience is law to him, and 
that he ought to disobey the civil law, when his convictions of 
duty are averse to it, — we can only say, men have it at their 
option to choose between the law and the penalty ; if they will 
not obe}' the law, they should submit uncomplainingly to the 
penaltv. The Christian religion forbids them, in any case, to 
make forcible resistance. If they suffer in consequence of 
having such eccentric consciences, it is surely no fault of a gov- 
vernment, which is approved by the consciences of the great 
body of the people. 

To apply these principles to our own constitution. The peo- 
ple of this country are a Christian people. They are an intel- 
ligent people. They are trained from their inftmcy in the 
knowledge of (iod's law. They are trained from their infancy 
to the discussion of political principles, and the settlement of 
political questions. They understand the nature and opera- 
tion of laws, as no other people understand them. If there is 



a people on (ho cnrtli compt'tcnt to jucl{;c of the n^rcrmcnt of 
aconslilution willi the law of (lod, it is the Americjui people. 
The people of this country have qiven in their soUmiim adhe- 
rence to the constitution. Thcv h-tve not sulimiltcd to it of 
necessity, they have a(l()|)t'Ml it nfrhoice. For more than sixty 
years ol its exi^Jeiice, on the -Ith of July of each year, a thou- 
sand voices, comini; nj) from every section ol the land, and rep- 
resentin: every sect, and parly, and interest of the country, 
have uttered its praises. Divines of every shade of belief, 
Vh losophers of every school, .Statesmen of evcrv partv, hive 
ii. their turn eulo.;ized this immortal instrument. If it had heen 
contrary to (Joel's law, it is passing; straM<;e that the Christian 
intelligence of this great people has not to this dav discerned 
it. AVe hold it to be the sense of the American people that the 
Constitution of these Sta»es is not contrary to the law of (.'od, 
and that to obey it in all its parts is morally rii;ht. 

And when we say thi?, we do not mean ihat every provision 
considered abstractly is jtist what all woidd approve of. The 
circumstances of the world do not admit of absolute perfection 
in any government. But we mean tliat, taken as a whole, it is 
the be>t that coidd be devised by an intelligent people, earnestly 
desiring to do riijht If this is the case, and its parts are so 
cemented that they cannot be separated without the destruction 
of the whole fabric, are we not morally bound to approve of 
it? Should we not be guilty of greater moral wrong by re- 
jecting it altogether, thtin by submitting to it as it is? Indi- 
viduals may lix their eye upon some particular feature, which 
separaled from the rest they cannot afiprove of But the ques- 
tion :>h )uld be, is the constituiion as it staruls, stich that we are 
guilty of greater moral wrong by submittnif^ to it, than we 
should be by rising against? Ought not the fact, that it meets 
with the approval of the great body of the peopi •, to satisfy us 
upon this point? Is it not nioralK right to doihe best we can, 
and to maintain the best syst^'m which the imperfection of hu- 
man soci( ty, and the circumstances of the age admits of? A^id 
Avould it not be morally wrong to .;bolish s'm h a system, in or- 
der to escape some unavoidable evils connected with it? Does 
the Gospel allow us to do a great evil, that a little good may 
come ? Every body knows, that many cases arise in human 
life, when conllicting motives appeal to a man's conscience, 
some considerations miking it Ins duty to act in one way, and 
other considerations niaking it hi- duty to act in a directly op- 
posite way. Rut what does every good man do in s ch a case ? 
He carelu!ly examines the whoL- ground, weighs the conMictinf 
moti\«s. kI then acts according to what, upon the whole, he 
b<l;eves to h • nearest right, although in such a case he may do 
tilings which, if taken separately, his conscience would con- 



10 

demn. And we hold that that which is nearest right, is abso- 
lutely right. It is absohately right for a man to do the best he 
can, although, under other circumstances, he might do better. 
And now if the Constitution of the United States is, upon the 
•wholc; the best that can be devised, Ave hold that it is morally 
right to obey it in all its parts, although, under a more perfect 
state of society it might be possible to improve it ; and hence 
that we are morally bound to obey all laws passed to carry out 
its express provisions. 

That this is especially the case with respect to all who ac- 
cepted of the privileges of citizenship, we think undeniable. 
Every man who exercises the right of suffrage, does, in depos- 
iting his vote, recognize the authority of the constitution, 
which confers that right upon him : and he acknowledges his 
moral obligation to support the government, as a legitimate 
government and an ordinance of God, and virtually pledges 
himself thereto. In some of the States, indeed, a declaration 
to this effect is required under oath, before the individual can 
be permitted vote. This is the case, we believe, in all or m.ost 
of the New England States, and is emphatically the case in all 
the States, with respect to such as hold office under the consti- 
tution. Now, we hold, that a man who in either of these 
■ways — either by voting or holding office, has signified his alle- 
giance to the constitution, has virtually declared his belief that 
it improses no obligation, which his conscience forbids him to 
discharge. And we can conceive of no greater inconsistency, 
than for a man solemnly to acknowledge the authority of the 
constitution, and deliberately enter upon the exercises of tbe 
rights conferred by it, and then presume to say that his con- 
science does not permit him to obey it. 

It is certcunly a curious spectacle, to see a man calling him- 
self a Christian, take a solemn oath ; calling upon God to wit- 
ness that he intends to violate his conscience ; or to see the 
same man take oath to support the constitution, and then say, 
that his conscience requires him to commit perjury by acling 
in defiance of it. We think that every American citizen is 
bound by a double obligation to obey every constitutional law 
of the United States. 1. Because by the voice of the nation, 
it is not contrary to the law of God, which should satisfy his 
conscience that upon the whole it is right, and therefore bind- 
in»- as an ordinance of God. 2. Because, by his own act, he 
hal signified his allegiance to it. 

But now it may be asked on the other hand, what is the duty 
of citizens with respect to laws which are not constitutional ? 
The simple ansvv'cr is, that a law which has been adjudged by 
competent authority to be unconstitutional, is, by virtue of such 
decision, null and void. But no good citizen will presume a 



11 

law unconstitutional, and disolx-y it upon Itis own aulVorily. 
Oil the contrary, the j)i\s6igo of a law by hoth honsi-s of Con- 
gress, after due and unrestrained (Ulil)er!ition, should be takm ( 
as stron<; presumption of its unro?jstitutionahly, and should 
make niObt men diirulent of assrrlinr; the contrarv- 

Hut even where there is good reason to (|ue.->tion tlje legality 
of public acts, they must slill be submitted to, and obeyed ns 
the laws of the land, until such lime ns their illegnlily shall he 
established. The citizen may dotditbss enter his protest 
a^^ainst such law, and take every legitimate slip to obtain re- 
dress, should he be personally a^^ricved by it, as was the case 
not lon|T since in the City of New-Vork, where the imposition 
of certain custom duties by the Secretary of the Treasurer 
was judged by some merchants illegal. 'IMicy nevertheless paid 
the duties, though under protest, with a view to obtain redress 
thereafter, l^ut it is clear that all such questions must be de- 
termined, not by each man for hims<'lf, but by some competent 
tribunal, whose decision shall be final and authoritative. Such 
a tribunal is the Supreme Court of the United States, niade by 
the constitution itselfj the final interpreter of all its provisions, 
and the authoritative judge of all laws passed under it. To 
that tribunal any man may appeal who thinks himself aggriev- 
ed an unconstitutional law of the United States. But any law 
is to be presumed constitutional and submmited to as such, un- 
til th :'.t tribunal shall have declared to the contrary. 

What now are the conclusions to whicli these fi-marks lead 
us? 

1. We believe that any inilividual who in any c isi-, and for 
any reason, forcibly resists the laws of the United States, is 
guilty of crime xxi resisting the ordinance of God, and must be 
condemned in the consciences of all good citizens. 

2. We believe that for an American citizen to refuse obedi- 
ence to the laws of tlie Uruted States, on the ground of their 
unconstitutionality, or uj)on the plea of conscience, is absurd 
incoui^islent, and fanatical. 

3. We believe that if an individual persists in refusing obe- 
dience to the laws of tl.e United Slates, on the plea of con- 
science, or because he is required to perform duties which his 
sensibilities or feelings revolt at — as to be hangman, or a jailor, 
he is bound still to honor the law by subnutting qui tly to the 
penalty. Let us now come to the application of these re- 
marks : 

The Congress of the United States, during its last session, 
passed a law providing for the arrest of Fugitive Slavis, and 
their restoration to tlu ir masters. 

This law has caused unusual excitement at the Nordj, and 
has been assailed by very strong, and in some instances, intc.u- 



12 



pcrafe opposition. In some quarters, violent resistance has 
b.^en tlireatcneci, should occasion reijtiire its beinijj executed. 
The threat of resistance 1 regard as wicked and a!)ominnbIe, an- 
swering no end but to exhibit tlie ferocity and madness of those 
who m.ike it, and exposing them to the just indignation of all 
good citizens. Opposition to the law in any form, we regard 
as utterly unjustid ible, except on one of the two grounds which 
•we have before staled, viz.. either that it is contrary to the law of 
God, or that it is contrary to the constitution. But we have 
endeavored to show that individuals are not to presume either 
of these c.ises upon theii- own responsibility. We have no 
right to prosume a law morally wrong which is required by the 
constitniion. Ihv thereby we olfend against the general sense of • 
the nation, unless we are prepared to show that the nation has 
repudiated the constitution. If this Fugitive Slave Law be 
demanded by the constitution, we cannot indue it abstractly. ^ 
The question is not, would it be right if taken by itself? but is 
it right as part of the constitution Y I( the constitution, as it 
stands, is upon the whole the best that the circumstances of the " 
nation admit of, we are morally bound to submit to every part 
of it. We cannot make our conditions with the government, 
and say we v/ill obey the constitution if this part be excepted ; 
other men may deem it wicked to sell rnm, and refuse subjec- 
tion to a government which legalizes the rum traffic ; others 
may except to otb.er poriions, and where would such a course 
end? If it is, as a whole, the b^st that can be, it is supreme 
law for the whole nation by the authority of God, and every 
man is morally l)ound to submit to every law required to carry 
out its pi'ovi>!ons. 'i'lie only proper question then is, is this 
law constilutiona! ? and we have already shown that no man 
has a right to presume otherwise, until a coropetent authority 
has so (lecidjd ; certain it is fh.at no such decision has as yet 
been had ; on the contrary, the higliest judicial otiicer of the 
land has given his opinion that it is ni accordance with the con- 
stitution. Mere tlien we mi'j;ht rest our argument. This 'aw 
is the law of the land, and r\( ly man is morally and religiously 
bound to render it res[)eit and submission. But though we 
may not presume to acc( pt of a law, purely upon our own 
judgments, it may nevertheless be gratiiying to satisfy our judg- 
ments that it is what it is declared to be, constitutional ; and in 
the opiiiioti o( the nation, not contrary to the law of God. I 
believe this law to be com-titutiona! — not upon my own judg- 
ment alone, for 1 have reason to dis:rusi my o\s n jmk'inciit 
up n a mailer of this kind — but because it lias been so declar- 
ed by the ab!e:^t men of this nation. som<^ ol v.iiom gave it 
their sanction in Congress, and olliers of whom have a[)proved 
of it since. The Presidmt of the United States has signed it; 



13 

the Attorney fJcncral has <i;ivcn an ofllcial opinion, approving 
of it ; and it has been denied by no one that I know, except 
men who understand a great many other tliinj^s better tban they 
do law. I have endeavored to understand tliis law, and, in my 
humble judgment, can see no reason to doubt what so many 
able men have adlrined. I do not consider myself any hi^b le- 
gal authority, but will, nevertheless, venture to state my views. 

That the ohjcct of this law is constitutional no one can doidjt. 
The constitution does, beyond all question, recognize the right 
of property in Slaves, and it guarantees to every man the en- 
joyment of his lawful rigbts. But it would be a manifest viola- 
tion of such guarantee to allow men to be dispossessed of their 
property, whether in slaves or otherwise, contrary to the laws 
of the State in which they live. The very design of the con- 
stitution is to secure equal rights to all, without respect to state 
lines Hence, if it recognize a slave as property, and that 
without respect to the place he may be in, it must guarantee 
unto the master the lawful possession and service of his slave, 
wherever ho can find him. The lawful claim of the master is 
not vitiated by the removal of the slave a certain number of 
miles, but in the eye of the constitution the slave is his, wher- 
ever he can establish a legal title to him ; and it follows that the 
constitution must protect him in the enforcement of his claim, 
in whatever part the United States the slave may be. It ac- 
cordingly makes provisions that "no person held to service 
or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into 
another State, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall 
be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or 
labor may be due." The constitution does not create slavery ; 
it simply guarantees that the laws of one state shall not be an- 
nulled by the people of another state, and that therefore a slave 
under the laws of one state, shall not cease to be a slave Ny the 
removal of his person into another state. It is to carry out this 
object of the constitution that this obnoxious law has been passed. 

I3ut we apprehend that the chief objections to this law lie 
against the manner in which it provides for the accomplish- 
ments of its object. Thf law provides that the owner of a fu- 
gitive slave, or a person holding power of attorney from him, 
may, under a proper warrant, bring such fugitive before any 
court or judge of the United States, or any commissioner ap- 
pointed by the courts of the United States, when it becomes 
the duty of such judge or commissioner to hear and determine 
the case in a summary manner ; and upon satisfactory proof be- 
ing made as to the identity of the person, and also as to the fact 
of his being really and tndy a slave, to authorize the claimant 
to take the slave back to the place which he fled from. 

It is objected to this mode of proceeding that it does not al- 



14 

low the slave to test the question of his slavery before a jury, 
but upon the mere proof of his identity, and that upon the af- 
fidavit of the opposite party, he is delivered up. We observe 
upon this objection, that the constitution is the highest law of 
the land— supreme above the common law, and above the sta- 
tute laws of the several states. If it shall appear that the con- 
stitution contemplated this mode of procedure, it is idle to say 
that it is contrary to the ordinary mode of proceeding in a 
property question under the common law. Whatever may be 
the ordinary mode of proceeding, if the constitution has pro- 
vided for this particular case, the question is settled. Judge 
Story, the highest law authority perhaps in this country, thus 
speaks upon the clause of the constitution under which this act 
was passed. Saj's he, " It is obvious that these provisions for 
the arrest and removal of fugitives contemplate summary min- 
isterial proceedings, and not the ordinary course of judicial in- 
vestigations, to ascertain W'hether the complaint is well founded 
or the claim of ownership be established beyond controversy. 
In the case of suspected crimes, the guilt or innocence of the 

f)arty is to be made out upon his trial, and not upon the pre- 
iminary inquiries whether he shall be delivered up. All that 
would seem to be necessary in such cases, is, that there should 
be prima facie evidence before the executive authority, to satisfy 
its judgment that there is probable cause to believe the party 
guilty, such as upon an ordinary warrant would justify his 
commitment for trial. And in the cases of fugitive slaves, there 
would seem to be the same necessity, of requiring only prima 
facie proofs of ownership, without putting the party to the for- 
mal assertion of his rights by a suit at the common law. Con- 
gress appears to have acted upon this opinion ; and, accord- 
ingly, in the statute upon this subject, (law of 1793,) have au- 
thorized summary proceedings before a magistrate, upon which 
he may grant a warrant for a removal." Such was the opin- 
ion of Judge Story, twenty years before this law was passed. 

Again, it is said, that the constitution itself provides that 
"the trial of all crimes shall be by jury," which, it is said, this 
law violates. Those who quote these words, should read the 
next — " and such trial shall be held in the State where the said 
crime shall have been committed." If it is a crime for a slave to 
run away, he certainly commits the crime in the state where he 
runs away and it is there that by the constitution he must have 
his trial ; and surely there is nothing in this law to prevent it. 

Again, it is said, that this law deprives the slave of the privi- 
lege of the writ of habeas corpus. This writ is a remedy 
against unlawful imprisonment. Any man put in prison or 
held in confmement, except under the sentence of a court, may 
apply to the Judge having jurisdiction, who tbrthwith issues a 
writ of habeas corpus, requiring such person to be brought be- 



16 



foro him, and c.uiso to l)c shown why Iw was put in c infinc- 
mont. Hut after the senlcncc of a court, having; iihimatc ju- 
risdiction, adjiulj^in^ n innn to imprisonment, there can he no 
such writ issueil, for then the man is in custody nccor(hng to 
law ; and in the hinf];Ma<;o of the Attorney (Jcneral, •' it is not 
within the province or privih't;e of this threat writ to loose 
those whom the liiir ha< hourul." It is not intendetl to n\dlify 
law?, but to prevent imprisonment contrary to law. Now those 
hehl as slaves under ihf laws of the United States, clearly can- 
not take out a writ of habeas corpus to try why they are held 
as slaves, any more than a man in the State Prison can take out 
such a writ to try why he is held in custody. The lairs have 
alre'ii'y dec'led it. In l)oth casi s the person is in custody bi/ 
aiithontij of law, and it is surelv ahsurd to talk ot" suin<j; out a 
writ of habeas corpus to nia/iC the law show cause why it has put 
a man in custody. In the case of a fugitive slave, it is indeed 
necessary to prove that he is a slave before his custody is law- 
ful. Accordinf^ly, should a person be arrested on this plea and 
held in connnement, without due steps being taken to test the 
question of his slavery, a case might arise when a writ of ha- 
beas corpus would be had, and in such a case there is nothing 
whatever in this law to prevent the suing out siu.h a writ. But 
by the provisions of this law, the person is not held in cnnjine- 
mcnt, but is brought at once before a Judge or Commissioner, 
who is bound to hear and determine the case in a snnim iry 
manner, and give to the claimant (if his claim be established,) 
lawful authority to take his slave, after w hich a writ of habeas 
corpus can of course have no force. Mr. Crittenden, the At- 
torney General, afler discussing the law at some length, thus 
speaks :— " I conilude by repeating my conviction, that there 
is nothing in this bill whi h conflicts w ith the constitution, or 
suspends, or was inteiuled to suspend the privilege of the writ 
of habeas corpus. 

But perhaps the strongest feeling of opposition has been ex- 
pressed against that clause of the law which makes it the duty of 
citizens to assist in its execution, and empowers the oflicer hav- 
ing charge of its execution, to summon the by-standers to his 
aid, should circumstances render it necessary. I'pon this 
clause of the law, aloud and pathetic wail has been raised, that 
free citizens are exj)os( d to the liability of being degraded into 
slave calchfTs ; and to hear some men talk, we might all expect 
to be summoned from our beds to hamstring negroes — and to 
see troops of screaming slaves flying through our streets, pur- 
sued by ruthless sivages, w ith pistols and bloodhounds, and to 
be o 'rselves required to join in the ferocily of the hunt. 
Now those who raise this terrific complaint, should remember 
that citizens are at all times liable, in case of any obstruction 



16 

to the laws, to be called on to aid in their execution. In case of 
riot, or the arrest of an escaped convict, or suspected criminal, eve- 
ry citizen is bound by the law to obey the sheriff or constable, 
who may demand his assistance But from whom is obstruction to 
this law to be feared, if at all Why only from those who now cla- 
mor against it If they will not oppose the law, there will be no 
need of any one to assist the officers in its execution With the 
negroes alone they will be perfectly competent to deal. It would in- 
deed be very revolting to one's feelings to be called on to assist in 
'arresting a slave. But, practically, what does this provision amount 
to How many of all the gentlemen who now tremble in their 
shoes, for fear of being required to lay hands on a slave, have ever 
been called on to assist in arresting a criminal Probably not one in 
a thou.^and of all the people in the United States, ever saw a crim- 
inal arrested, and probably not on« in a thousand of all the people in 
the United States, will ever see a fugitive slave arrested. 

But who are the men who make the loudest opposition to this law ? 
Why, the men, (I say it more in sorrow than in anger,) who have 
themselves, in a great measure, created the necessity for it. Men, 
who in violation of the constitution which they have sworn to main- 
tain, wantonly invaded the rights guaranteed by the constitution to 
their fellow citizens — who not content to wash their hands of sla- 
very, with their countrymen of the North — have gratuitously fol- 
lowed it to the South, and by inducing the slave to rise against the 
laws and escape from his master, have been instrumental in spread- 
ing the curse over the land. And through their wicked and officious 
meddling, slavery now exists at the North, when, but for 
them, it might have existed only at the South. It is asserted that 
there are at this hour, three hundred lawful slaves in the City of 
Boston, and thousands more scattered throughout all the Northern 
States. Whose fault is it that this curse now exists among us, but 
theirs who have invited it here ? And if northern men are now to 
be brought into contact with it, and to be slave catchers, who 
among them have so little reason to complain as these men them- 
selves ? They have brought the curse among us ; they should not 
shrink from the work of removing it out of our sight. They have 
wrought the mischief; they, if any, should be willing to work the 
remedy, and thus make some little attonement for the wrong which 
they have done the North 

Had they acted before God as good citizens and christian men, in 
accordance with the principles of the Gospel and the example of 
Christ and his Apostles, and shown respect and submission to the 
laws, we should not have now been put to the loathsome necessity 
of contaminating our fingers with slavery ; and we repeat it, no 
northern men have so little reason to complain as those who could 
not keep their fingers away from it, when placed by the law beyond 
their legitimate reach. A slave running away from his master, is 
none the less a slave under the constitution. ' Wherever there are 
lawful slaves, there is slavery, and if from the enticement of slaves 
to the North by northern men, Congress has been constrained to re- 
assert and confirm tliis undoubted provision of the constitution, and 



17 

thus practically to revive slavery at the North, whofo fault in it, I 
again ask, Imt lln-irs who have brou^^lit it lu-re ? This obiioxioui 
law is hut the result of a consliluliiinal necessity growing out of the 
transportation of slaves to the North. 

Before concludinf:; these remarks, I wish to nlluilo to an ohjection 
hrout^ht against this law, on the ground that it is contrary to the 
Scriptures. In various quarters a passage has been (|Uotu(J from 
Deut 23, 15, " Thou shalt not deliver unt«) his nnaslcr tiie servant 
that is escaped from his master unto thee, &c " Those who quote 
this text should remember, that most able commentators regard this 
text as referring to the slaves of another nation escaping into Judea ; 
such were not to be delivered up Dr. A. Clark has this comment 
on the passage — *' that is, a servant escaping from an irlolatrous nvas- 
ter, that he might join himself to God ami his people — otherwise it 
would have been injustice to have harbored him " A slave escaping 
into Judea from one of the surrounding nations was not to be deliv- 
ered up ; and such is to this day the law of nations, and the law of 
the United States. When a few years ago, a number of slaves es- 
caped to this country from the West Indies, in the Spanish vessel 
Amistad, they were, by a decision of the United States Court, set at 
liberty, and were, I believe, only demanded by the Spanish authori- 
ties on the ground that the vessel was not within the waters of the 
United States when she was taken possession of. So that this pas- 
sage of scripture so triumphantly quoted against this law, is at this 
moment the law of the United States. That slaves escaping from 
one tribe to another among the Hebrews, were not to be delivered 
up, has not been shown. But whatever might have been the regu 
lation upon this point, it could not have atFecled very materially ihe 
condition of the slave, for slavery existed in all the tribes, and that 
with the express sanction of God, as is evident from Lev. 25,-l4,&c. 
" Of the heathen shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids ; moreover, 
of the children of the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy and of their families which are among you, which they 
begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall 
take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit 
them for a possession " 

In the New Testament, although the writers all lived under slave- 
holding governments, we find nothing furbiding the restoration of fu- 
gitives, if the civil law required it. On the contrary, St. Paul says, 
" Let as many servants or slaves, as the word property signifies,) 
as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all 
honor " 

One of the canonical books of the New Testament, the Epistle to 
Philemon, is a letter written by St. Paul to a slaveholder, and sent 
by the bands of a fugitive slave, in w bich the Apostle says, th. t he 
had stnt the slave back, as without the master's consent, he con- 
sidered it wrong to keep him, and asks the master to forgive him 
for running away. I do nut allude to these text.-< and instances as 
arguments. I do not think that anything that can be found in scrip- 
ture has any very conclusive bearing upon the sAibject in hand. The 
circumstances of the age and country are so different, that we can 



18 

infer nothing from them with certai ty. But if men will quote 
Scripture against this hiw, we have a right to show what the Scrip- 
tures actuallv say. 

If this hiw is morally wrong, it can only be so on the ground that 
slavery is morally wrong. To discuss the morality of slavery, is 
foreio^n to m}' |)resent purpose. I am dealing simply with this law, 
as a measure to carry out the constitution under which we live I 
repeat, we can only discuss it as a part of that constitution ; what 
would be our judgment of it under other circumstances, is nothing 
to the case.. It cannot be separated from the fundamental law of the 
land ; and to pronounce it in such a connection morally wrong, is to 
od'end against the moral sense of the nation, and oppose the ordinance 
of God. 

If it be said that I am reasoning from false premises— that the 
the moral sentiment of the nation condemns this law, my reply is, 
then let it be extinguished at once. " The voice of the people is 
the voice of God." But we must not loose sight of the fact, that to 
abolish this law is to change the constitution, or at least, to render 
a portion of it a dead letter ; and the question is not do the people 
condemn this law by itself, but do they condenm it^ constitution and 
all ? Although the laws and constitution must all bow before the 
majesty of the people, yet we should be sure that the people have 
spoken, before we take it for granted that the law and the constitu. 
tion are abolished. Men should not to be too hasty in presuming 
that their consciences have efl'ected a revolution in the land. In this 
democratic country, we are very prone to imagine ourselves with 
the majority— to jump to the conclusion that our convictions are the 
convictions of the nation; especially is this the case upon an excit- 
ing topic of this kind. Men with their feelings wrought up touch- 
ing this law, and with all its offensive features magnified to their 
vision, imagine that the whole nation are looking at it with the same 
horrow-stricken gaze. It may be so. I do not deny it. But would 
it not be better to wait a legitimate expression of the nation's will, 
through their representatives, before we proceed to break the law 
upon such a supposition. The assembled (Congress of the nation, 
coming from all parts of the country, are far better able to ju„ge of 
the (eelings and wishes of the peoj)le than you and 1. If this law 
is objectionable in its details, if it is more severe and injurious to 
the feelings of the North than is absolutely necessary to meet the 
requirements of the constitution, it should be forthwith amended 
The people at lari^e inay and ought to express their demands for its 
amendment. The people of the South will, 1 believe, consent to its 
ameiiiiment, if it be asked in a spirit of conciliation. 

You must observe, that there is a great dilTerence between simply 
disliking this law, and demanding its absolute repeal in the face of 
the const'(juences which threaten to follow. It is not like a law 
which is simply not inconsi.-^tent with the constitution. Many such 
laws there may be, both good and bad, the passage or repeal of 
whi( h do not aflect, in any way, the integrity of the constitution. 
It uiiglit be constitutional to pass a law to build a dam across the 



19 

North River, hut it woultl Ix? a very Itnd and injurious law, and 
would be insUiiuly rrpealed ul llu* dtMiiand of llie [U'oplf. 

Hut tlu' Fu;^itivi' Slave Law is absolulidy dtMnanded to carry out 
an fxprt'ss rcquire'ini'nt of (lie constitution, as much as law.s uHtab- 
lishiii^ Custoni Houses and I'ost OlIiccH. 

NVtide all then contend that this law is essentially identified with 
the constitution, and cannot he separated from it, under the critical 
circuin>ilances of the nation, without destroyin;;^ the constitution, we 
may still allow that is harsh and repulsive to the spirit of the ajje. 
It is a part of the necessary machinery of a system which is itself a 
relic of t)arl>arism, and which has been for thepastsix hun<lred years, 
steadily declininij before the growth of popular ideas, and the march 
of Cliristian civilization. That men, whose interests are nowise 
identilled with such a system, should love this law for its own sake, 
is not to be supposed It was not passed at the choice of the North. 
It was submitted to from an unavoidable necessity ; and in the spirit 
in which it was passed, should it now be received by the people. 
As lon^ as slavery exists under our constitution, we have no choice 
but to submit to its inconveniences ; and we submit to this law, not 
becau>;e we like it, but because the maintenance of the constitution 
demands it. 

We do not forf|;et that the will of the people is the ultimate law of 
the land ; and if the time has come when the people of these Stales 
are ready to declare that they will no longer be subject to a constitution 
which recognizes slavery ; that they will no longer, under any cir- 
cumstances, or for any cause, participate in its regulations, or sub- 
mit to witness its re^ulalions in their midst ; that at all hazards, and 
reckless of consequence*, they will break olT all connection with it; 
I say, if such is the will of the people, so let it be But I pray 
God that they may pause well, and earnestly examine the ground on 
which they tread, before they take so momentous a step They may 
nulity the constitution if they will They may sever the Union of 
these Slates They may split this great confederacy into fragments. 
They may revolutionize this continent, liut the man who expects 
such a revolution, without blood and tears, and the horrors of a civil 
war, has not discerned the signs of the times. We should consider 
well the question whether our present Government with slavery, is 
not belter than disunion, anarchy, and civil war, and slavery, after 
all? Will slavery be abolished by the overthrow of this confede- 
racy .■* Will not rather its evils be multiplied and its extinction be 
put further off.^ 

Much as I regret the necessity for any such law as the one we 
are now c»)nsidering, yet I believe we are under moral and religious 
obligations to submit to it as indis|)ensable to the present safely of 
the country. And in saying this, 1 do not admit the application to 
myself of the ungenerous taunts which have been tlirown out. that 
those who would see the law maintained, are in " favor of slave 
catching." I claim to love my country, and to love righteousness, 
as well as other men. I have the same right to claim credit for 
honesty of views. I am not in favt)r of man catching I am not in 
favor of slavery. I abominate it as a monstrous evil, and can any 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



Hi 


III 




llll 


Mil 


ij 


"' 


''' 





20 

812 026 170 8 

man show me how it tan be extinguished this day or this jear, 1 
will honor him as a prophet sent from God. 

If 1 sincerely believed that a disunion of these States were possi- 
ble, without blood, and that such a disunion would destroy the in- 
stitution of slavery, with my whole soul would I recommend it this 
day. But 1 devoutly believe that the integrity of our constitution 
is the surest hope of the slave. I believe that the encroachments 
of free labor, and the moral power of the North, and the various in- 
fluences which are pressing against slavery, will be exerted with 
tenfold more efficiency, while the Union is maintained, than they 
■would be, were the North and the South divided ; with national 
boundaries, and commercial and tariff regulations, to say nothing of 
antipathies and jealousies, erecting a barrier between them. 

\Ve stand perhaps upon the eve of great events. What may be 
in the future, no man can tell. Certain it is, that the wisest and 
best in the land, discern dangers gathering upon the sky. It is a 
time for the Patriot to be thoughtful and for Christian men to pray. 
Let us look with devout hearts to the God of our Fathers, that as 
he guided them in the day of their peril, he may now guide their 
sons through the difficulties which thicken around their path. Let 
us not wantonly stir np the elements of discord anew. We may 
kindle a fire that will indeed extinguish the Fugitive Slave Law, but 
which will at the same time consume all that is beautiful and fair 
in this goodly land. Let us in the fear of God, reverence the laws. 
Let us stand by the Union. The breath of fanaticism blowing 
from the North, and blowing from the South, has swelled into a 
fearful gale, which threatens to engulf the Constitution. The noble 
ship is reeling before the blast. It becomes all on board to have 
cool heads and true hearts. May God give her a good deliverance, 
and may all the people say Amen, 



MINI MIMIII Mini Ml 

012 026 170 8 ^ 



HolHnRcr 

pH 8.5 

Mill Run F3-195^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 026 170 8 



Hollinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3-1955 



